Relationship of computed tomography perfusion and positron emission tomography to tumour progression in malignant glioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionThis study aimed to explore the potential for computed tomography (CT) perfusion and 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in predicting sites of future progressive tumour on a voxel-by-voxel basis after radiotherapy and chemotherapy. MethodsTen patients underwent pre-radiotherapy magnetic resonance (MR), FDG-PET and CT perfusion near the end of radiotherapy and repeated post-radiotherapy follow-up MR scans. The relationships between these images and tumour progression were assessed using logistic regression. Cross-validation with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to assess the value of these images in predicting sites of tumour progression. ResultsPre-radiotherapy MR-defined gross tumour; near-end-of-radiotherapy CT-defined enhancing lesion; CT perfusion blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV) and permeability-surface area (PS) product; FDG-PET standard uptake value (SUV); and SUV:BF showed significant associations with tumour progression on follow-up MR imaging (P < 0.0001). The mean sensitivity (±standard deviation), specificity and area under the ROC curve (AUC) of PS were 0.64 ± 0.15, 0.74 ± 0.07 and 0.72 ± 0.12 respectively. This mean AUC was higher than that of the pre-radiotherapy MR-defined gross tumour and near-end-of-radiotherapy CT-defined enhancing lesion (both AUCs = 0.6 ± 0.1, P ≤ 0.03). The multivariate model using BF, BV, PS and SUV had a mean AUC of 0.8 ± 0.1, but this was not significantly higher than the PS only model. ConclusionPS is the single best predictor of tumour progression when compared to other parameters, but voxel-based prediction based on logistic regression had modest sensitivity and specificity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".